http://ca.finance.yahoo.com/news/two-best-buy-outlets-close-quebec-reports-more-162957692.html

I think the move to close down store makes sense (though not informing their employees ahead of time was brutal and definitely unethical, did those guys even get a chance to clear out their lockers? They certainly didn't get a chance to plan ahead for another job in order to make rent).

I get games and music digitally now (and DRM-free too!). Occasionally, I'll purchase a DVD (mostly because digitally distributed movies are too heavily DRMed), but not often thanks to Netflix.

Retailing for a lot of stuff is dying and it's a good thing and it saves on clutter, environmental overhead and costs (when you look at the big picture, it's just better).

The problem occurs when those things lead to job losses which represent people's livelihood.

I don't think the faults lies in improving the efficiency of the process (you need it for progress, otherwise things stagnate into an inefficient mess) as much as the dated "work for food and shelter" model.

Don't get me wrong, manpower is needed in several areas and should be properly compensated, but a lot of the stress with changing how things operate lies in the fact that you'll deprive some people of a way to put food on the table and a roof over their head.

You would greatly alleviate the problem by providing minimum guaranteed income for everyone (enough to eat and have a place to stay plus pay for the other basics).

From there, any income people earn by working would be on top of this minimum income.

Why on top? First so that everyone benefits from it (to increase the mindset that it's a standard thing, rather than something only the welfare bums get).

Second, because atm, the welfare system is badly implemented as it doesn't give incentives for welfare recipients to work in any capacity that they can.

My understanding is that if you work near full time on minimal wage, you won't get that much more than a welfare check anyways and you won't be eligible to collect welfare.

So really, there isn't much of an incentive for many welfare recipients to find work at the lower end of the ladder (ex: part time minimum wage labor). Guaranteed minimum income would change that.

Obviously, recucing the cost of some of the bare essentials (ex: cheap appartments financed by non-profits: could be state owned, co-op or other) would make this even more viable, but would be optional.

Discuss.

@ welfare: first world problems. There was an announcement in the news yesterday. Welfare for disabled people is increased to (not by) $230. Renting a room in Moscow is $300.

Yes. but overall, I think the move reduced manpower requirements.

I doubt very much that they'll need as many tech people as they needed retailers.

Personally, I see the reduction in manpower requirements as a good thing, but for some reason, we live in a society where idle time is considered the root of all evil.

In an ideal world, the extra idle time would translate into innovation and a shift in manpower toward other more helpful endeavors.

In the world we live in, the extra idle time is wasted and translates into people that can't make rent or pay for day to day expenses without going into debt.

I find it problematic when instead of rejoicing when something is made more efficient, we suddenly have to worry about a whole bunch of people not being able to make ends meet.

To me, the most straightforward solution is to make the basic necessities as cheap as possible, raise the tax on those who benefit from the efficiencies of the process (if you can fire 10 people, you should be able to use some of the money saved to at least pay their rent and groceries) and use it to make sure everyone's ass is covered. Doesn't it make sense? Wouldn't making sure that everyone is fed and have a roof over their head a loadable goal?

Now, I happen to think that the food industry is actually pretty good in that department.

Sure, there is luxury food, but the basics are cheap enough that I don't think a significant amount of money would be saved by cutting off the middlemen.

Rent is another story I find.

I think rent is prohibitively expensive (building owners make a very confortable living off the rent they charge) and if you cut off the owner and just pay the janitor and admninistrator a competitive wage, you could pass on significant savings to whoever has to pay the rent (be it the rentee or state). No, the employees would make a competitive wage for their profession, but the fat (owners) would be cut off. No more than the employees at our state owned hydroelectric company or postal system.

They can quit anytime they like. Read the above. They'd work to buy the extras of life (anything beyond the bare basics) and for the satisfaction of providing an essential service (in the absense of the need for an immediate income, people will work for things they consider worthwhile working for as opposed to just a wage).

Call centers and marketing agencies might suddenly have a hard time finding labor, but I don't consider that much of a loss.

People will fill in the jobs that are actually needed (police force, garbage collection, construction, etc) out of a sense of duty and pride (and to buy things beyond the basics). Higher taxes, stratified by income.

At any given time, at least 90% of the population is working and most can pay for all or a significant portion of their minimum guaranteed income through taxation.

If people are laid off, then their employer is saving money and can pay more taxes to pay for those people's housing and food.

The argument that there isn't enough money around to pay for housing and food is a fallacy.